Effects of cooperative learning and need for affiliation on performance, time on task, and satisfaction

  • James D. Klein
  • Doris R. Pridemore


The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of cooperative learning and the need for affiliation on performance, time on task, and satisfaction. Subjects used either a cooperative or individual learning strategy while receiving information, examples, practice, and feedback from an instructional television lesson. Results indicated that subjects who worked cooperatively spent more time working on practice exercises and reported greater satisfaction than those who worked individually. In addition, results revealed an interaction between instructional method and the need for affiliation. Performance of subjects with a high need for affiliation who worked alone was lower than that of all other groups when subjects were asked to apply what they had learned from the lesson. Implications for employing cooperative groups in settings that were originally designed for individual learning are provided.


Educational Technology Learning Strategy Individual Learning Cooperative Group Cooperative Learning 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Adams, D., Carson, H., & Hamm, M. (1990).Cooperative learning and educational media. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.Google Scholar
  2. Carrier, C. A., & Sales, G. C. (1987). Pair versus individual work on the acquisition of concepts in a computer-based instructional lesson.Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 14, 11–17.Google Scholar
  3. Cohen, J. (1969).Statistical power analyses for the behavioral sciences. New York: John Wiley.Google Scholar
  4. Dalton, D. W., Hannafin, M. J., & Hooper, S. (1989). Effects of individual and cooperative computer-assisted instruction on student performance and attitude.Educational Technology Research & Development, 37(2), 15–24.Google Scholar
  5. Ferguson, G. A. (1981).Statistical analysis in psychology and education (5th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  6. Gerlach, V. (1973).Instructional theory: A nine unit mini-course. Lincoln, NE: Nebraska Educational Television Council for Higher Education.Google Scholar
  7. Hooper, S., & Hannafin, M. J. (1991). The effects of group composition on achievement, interaction, and learning efficiency during computer-based cooperative instruction.Educational Technology Research & Development, 39(3), 27–40.Google Scholar
  8. Jackson, D. N. (1974).Personality research form manual. Goshen, NY: Research Psychologists Press.Google Scholar
  9. Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1989).Cooperation and competition: Theory and research. Edina, MN: Interaction Book Company.Google Scholar
  10. Johnson, R. T., Johnson, D. W., & Stanne, M. (1985). Effects of cooperative, competitive, and individualistic goal structures on computer-assisted instruction.Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 668–677.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Keller, J. M. (1983). Motivational design of instruction. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.),Instructional-design theories and models: An overview of their current status (pp. 386–434). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  12. Keller, J. M. (1987).Instructional materials motivation scale (IMMS). Unpublished manuscript, Florida State University, Tallahassee.Google Scholar
  13. McClelland, D. C. (1965). Toward a theory of motive acquisition.American Psychologist, 20, 321–333.Google Scholar
  14. McClelland, D. C. (1976).The achieving society. New York: Irvington.Google Scholar
  15. Rysavy, D. M., & Sales, G. C. (1991). Cooperative learning in computer-based instruction.Educational Technology Research & Development, 39(2), 70–79.Google Scholar
  16. Sharan, S. (1980). Cooperative learning in small groups: Recent methods and effects on achievement, attitudes, and ethnic relations.Review of Educational Research, 50, 241–272.Google Scholar
  17. Slavin, R. E. (1990).Cooperative learning: Theory, research, and practice. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  18. Sutter, E. G., & Reid, J. B. (1969). Learner variables and interpersonal conditions in computer-assisted instruction.Journal of Educational Psychology, 60, 153–157.Google Scholar
  19. Webb, N. M. (1982). Peer interaction and learning in small cooperative groups.Journal of Educational Psychology, 74, 642–655.Google Scholar
  20. Webb, N. M. (1989). Peer interaction and learning in small groups.International Journal of Educational Research, 13(1), 21–39.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Association for Educational Communications and Technology 1992

Authors and Affiliations

  • James D. Klein
    • 1
  • Doris R. Pridemore
    • 1
  1. 1.the Learning and Instructional Technology Program at Arizona State University in TempeUSA

Personalised recommendations